Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: ReKO kid: Improved REKO expectation with one index change?

  1. #1
    ReKO kid
    Guest

    ReKO kid: Improved REKO expectation with one index change?

    Norm: Just returned from a GREAT 3-day stint in Vegas with REKO. Continually impressed at how consistently it holds up to KO-Preferred.

    Just one question: I've been thinking about changing the index number for one play, namely, standing 16 v. 10.

    The full matrix numbers for H16 v. 10 in the Vancura/Fuchs book is -1 for double deck, and -8 for six deck. I know that the REKO pivot points are adjusted for ease of use, making the index number actually -2 for the double deck game.

    This play seems to be the play which was most adjusted for the rounding of the +2 decision point. If I changed this one play only, standing on H16 v. 10 to 0 for a double deck game and -3 for the six-deck game (or the pivot point when I first increase the bet) -- what kind of expectation change do you think this would yield.

    Is this ONE index change a good idea?

    Thanks so much.

    REKO KID

  2. #2
    Norm Wattenberger
    Guest

    Norm Wattenberger: Re: Improved REKO expectation with one index change?

    I suggest -7 for six decks and -1 for double-deck. How much this helps depends on lots of variables. But, due to its frequency and difference from REKO, it is certainly a good choice.

    > Norm: Just returned from a GREAT 3-day stint in Vegas
    > with REKO. Continually impressed at how consistently
    > it holds up to KO-Preferred.

    > Just one question: I've been thinking about changing
    > the index number for one play, namely, standing 16 v.
    > 10.

    > The full matrix numbers for H16 v. 10 in the
    > Vancura/Fuchs book is -1 for double deck, and -8 for
    > six deck. I know that the REKO pivot points are
    > adjusted for ease of use, making the index number
    > actually -2 for the double deck game.

    > This play seems to be the play which was most adjusted
    > for the rounding of the +2 decision point. If I
    > changed this one play only, standing on H16 v. 10 to 0
    > for a double deck game and -3 for the six-deck game
    > (or the pivot point when I first increase the bet) --
    > what kind of expectation change do you think this
    > would yield.

    > Is this ONE index change a good idea?

    > Thanks so much.

    > REKO KID

  3. #3
    fatcat519
    Guest

    fatcat519: Question for Norm re above

    > I know that the REKO pivot points are
    > adjusted for ease of use, making the index number
    > actually -2 for the double deck game.

    > This play seems to be the play which was most adjusted
    > for the rounding of the +2 decision point. If I
    > changed this one play only, standing on H16 v. 10 to 0
    > for a double deck game and -3 for the six-deck game
    > (or the pivot point when I first increase the bet) --
    > what kind of expectation change do you think this
    > would yield.

    Doesn't matter much, but I'm curious. Do the KO terms "pivot point" and "key count" have meaning in reKO? Or would they have the same meaning, but just aren't used? In any case, I wouldn't think you could call the point where you first increase your bet the pivot point.


  4. #4
    Norm Wattenberger
    Guest

    Norm Wattenberger: On being too cute

    Pivot Point is meaningful. I choose not to use the terms. One of the reasons that REKO works as well as KO, is that KO is just a little bit too clever. They made the IRC a nice formula, and drummed the key count and pivot into the extra duty of signifying indexes. Mathematically clever sounding, but inaccurate. REKO is, of course, also inaccurate in its index. But by choosing to go with pure simplicity instead of clever dual uses of these terms, the same performance can be reached with less complication.

    > Doesn't matter much, but I'm curious. Do the KO terms
    > "pivot point" and "key count" have
    > meaning in reKO? Or would they have the same meaning,
    > but just aren't used? In any case, I wouldn't think
    > you could call the point where you first increase your
    > bet the pivot point.

  5. #5
    ReKO kid
    Guest

    ReKO kid: Re: On being too cute

    I think I mis-used the term "pivot point" in my original question. Sorry guys. I was thinking about the count at which I up my bet. All I wanted to know was if I could gain a little more expectation with REKO by changing the one index, and it appears to be the case. All said, REKO and KO seem to perform nearly identically for me and I like them both.

  6. #6
    ReKO kid
    Guest

    ReKO kid: Re: Improved REKO expectation with one index change?

    Thanks, Norm.

  7. #7
    ReKO kid
    Guest

    ReKO kid: Re: Improved REKO expectation with one index change?

    Norm: Any idea on the change in expectation gained by this one play? I play 2D S17 DAS with and w/o surrender, and 6D S17, DAS, with surrender.

  8. #8
    Norm Wattenberger
    Guest

    Norm Wattenberger: Re: Improved REKO expectation with one index change?

    I'm developing a full set of charts.

    > Norm: Any idea on the change in expectation gained by
    > this one play? I play 2D S17 DAS with and w/o
    > surrender, and 6D S17, DAS, with surrender.

  9. #9
    Parker
    Guest

    Parker: Keys and Pivots

    > Doesn't matter much, but I'm curious. Do the KO terms
    > "pivot point" and "key count" have
    > meaning in reKO? Or would they have the same meaning,
    > but just aren't used? In any case, I wouldn't think
    > you could call the point where you first increase your
    > bet the pivot point.

    I believe that the term "key count" was coined by Vancura & Fuchs in Knockout Blackjack, and simply represents the count at which one begins to have an edge. As such, it is an approximation since the actual count at which one has an edge will vary with penetration.

    I'm not sure about the origin of "pivot point," although its use predates Knockout Blackjack. All counts, balanced and unbalanced, have a pivot point. The pivot is the point at which running count = true count. (For unbalanced counts this assumes that IRC=(-x)x(#decks) where x is the amount by which the count is unbalanced).

    Thus, the pivot point is the point at which we have the most accurate information, since it is unaffected by penetration. This is one reason the KO works as well as it does, since the pivot is equivalent to a Hi-lo TC of +4, at which times we will have a big bet out.

    Also note that the pivot point for all balanced counts is 0.

  10. #10
    fatcat519
    Guest

    fatcat519: Re: Keys and Pivots

    > I believe that the term "key count" was
    > coined by Vancura & Fuchs in Knockout Blackjack,
    > and simply represents the count at which one begins to
    > have an edge. As such, it is an approximation since
    > the actual count at which one has an edge will vary
    > with penetration.

    V.&F. said they determined KC by simulation and that it depends almost entirely on number of decks, for any rule set. I assume that Norm would have done the same for his reKO bet schedules, without naming the point at which the bet is raised.

    > I'm not sure about the origin of "pivot
    > point," although its use predates Knockout
    > Blackjack. All counts, balanced and unbalanced, have
    > a pivot point. The pivot is the point at which running
    > count = true count. (For unbalanced counts this
    > assumes that IRC=(-x)x(#decks) where x is the amount
    > by which the count is unbalanced).

    Not quite clear here. Wouldn't you have to add 4 in the above formula to make the RC=TC?

    > Thus, the pivot point is the point at which we have
    > the most accurate information, since it is unaffected
    > by penetration. This is one reason the KO works as
    > well as it does, since the pivot is equivalent to a
    > Hi-lo TC of +4, at which times we will have a big bet
    > out.

    > Also note that the pivot point for all balanced counts
    > is 0.

  11. #11
    Parker
    Guest

    Parker: Re: Keys and Pivots

    > V.&F. said they determined KC by simulation and that
    > it depends almost entirely on number of decks, for any
    > rule set. I assume that Norm would have done the same
    > for his reKO bet schedules, without naming the point
    > at which the bet is raised. Not quite clear here.

    However determined, it is still an approximation. If we're halfway through the shoe (or 2-deck pack, or single deck), then it is pretty accurate. If we reach the key count very early in the shoe/pack/deck, it is actually underestimating our edge, and late in the shoe/pack/deck our edge is overstated.

    > Wouldn't you have to add 4 in the above formula to
    > make the RC=TC?

    Only if you want to compare KO TC to Hi-lo TC.

    If we apply the formula above to KO, we get IRC=-4 x (#decks). Thus, the IRC will be -4, -8, -24 and -32 for single, double, 6D and 8D respectively. What we are actually doing is adjusting so that the pivot is at 0.

    With these IRC's, we can true-count KO simply by dividing by the unseen decks, just as with a balanced count.

    Then, as you surmised, a KO TC of 0 would be equivalent, edge-wise, to a Hi-lo TC of +4.

    We could even use Hi-lo indices simply by subtracting 4 from them, although it would be more accurate to sim a set specifically for true-counted KO, or TKO as it is sometimes called.

  12. #12
    ReKO kid
    Guest

    ReKO kid: Re: Improved REKO expectation with one index change?

    To further confuse things: If I move 16 v. 10 index to -1 / -7 for 2D/6D respectively, always double 11 v. A, omit the 12 v. 4 index entirely as it doesn't affect play w/ bets greater than a single unit, would removing those three indexes warrant re-adjusting the single index number up to +3 to be more accurate with the remaining indices?? (Except maybe 9 v. 2 of course.)

    Just curious. Trying to personalize REKO for myself and I don't mind monkeying a bit with a couple of plays.

    Thanks for any advice.

    Newbie

  13. #13
    Norm Wattenberger
    Guest

    Norm Wattenberger: Re: Improved REKO expectation with one index change?

    I doubt it. But don't know.

    > To further confuse things: If I move 16 v. 10 index to
    > -1 / -7 for 2D/6D respectively, always double 11 v. A,
    > omit the 12 v. 4 index entirely as it doesn't affect
    > play w/ bets greater than a single unit, would
    > removing those three indexes warrant re-adjusting the
    > single index number up to +3 to be more accurate with
    > the remaining indices?? (Except maybe 9 v. 2 of
    > course.)

    > Just curious. Trying to personalize REKO for myself
    > and I don't mind monkeying a bit with a couple of
    > plays.

    > Thanks for any advice.

    > Newbie

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

About Blackjack: The Forum

BJTF is an advantage player site based on the principles of comity. That is, civil and considerate behavior for the mutual benefit of all involved. The goal of advantage play is the legal extraction of funds from gaming establishments by gaining a mathematic advantage and developing the skills required to use that advantage. To maximize our success, it is important to understand that we are all on the same side. Personal conflicts simply get in the way of our goals.